U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–688 PDF 2010

THE INCLUSIVE HOME DESIGN ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–163 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

September 29, 2010 .......................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

September 29, 2010 .......................................................................................... 19 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Barrera, Alberto, Manager, Community Development, Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago ..................................................................................................... 7 

Buckland, Kelly, Executive Director, National Council on Independent Living 

(NCIL) ................................................................................................................... 8 

Schakowsky, Hon. Janice D., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois ............................................................................................................... 3 

Smith, Eleanor A., Director, Concrete Change ..................................................... 5 

Smith, Janet L., Associate Professor, and Co-Director of the Nathalie P. 

Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement, University of Illinois at Chicago ..................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Schakowsky, Hon. Janice D. ............................................................................ 20 

Barrera, Alberto ................................................................................................ 23 

Buckland, Kelly ................................................................................................ 27 

Smith, Eleanor A. ............................................................................................. 35 

Smith, Janet L. ................................................................................................. 40 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Written statement of The Access Center for Independent Living, Inc. ....... 50 

Written statement of AARP ............................................................................. 51 

Written statement of a coalition of disability advocates from across the 

country ........................................................................................................... 53 

Written statement of the Consortiun for Citizens with Disabilities ............ 60 

Written statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) ....................... 62 

Written statement of Pima County Development Services ........................... 65 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore: 

Written statement of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 66 

(1) 

THE INCLUSIVE HOME DESIGN ACT 

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:12 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters and Capito. 

Also present: Representative Schakowsky. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank the 

ranking member and the other members of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity for joining me today for this 

hearing on the Inclusive Home Design Act, which was introduced 

last year, and has consistently been introduced since the 107th 

Congress, by my colleague, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. 

Congresswoman Schakowsky played a critical role in the comprehensive health care reform we achieved this Congress, and has 

been a consistent advocate and ally of the interests of women and 

our Nation’s seniors. And I am pleased to hold this hearing for legislation she has authored. 

As the witnesses here today will attest to, we have a growing 

population of individuals in this Nation who have a disability, or 

who may acquire a disability as they age. Currently, as one of our 

witnesses will mention, about 32 percent of all households in the 

United States include at least one person with a disability. That’s 

about 35 million households. And, as the Baby Boomer generation 

ages, the population of individuals with disabilities is only expected 

to increase. 

Additionally, we have an increasingly large number of wounded 

veterans searching for accessible housing as our soldiers return 

from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

So these demographic questions raise important public policy 

questions. What can we do to increase the housing options available to individuals with disabilities? As a Nation, we have already 

taken some steps to address accessibility for people with disabilities. Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act requires public 

housing authorities and nonprofit developers to comply with certain 

accessibility standards, while the Fair Housing Act requires multiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:45 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 062688 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\62688.TXT TERRIE
2 

family properties to meet certain specifications. And the Americans 

with Disabilities Act requires accessibility in commercial and public 

spaces. 

Congresswoman Schakowsky’s bill is a forward-looking next step 

which considers how we can increase the supply of accessible single-family homes by requiring new construction to comply with certain accessibility standards. By increasing this supply of accessible 

housing, we can allow more seniors to age in place, provide greater 

housing choices for individuals with disabilities, and allow people 

with disabilities to more easily visit friends and family. 

I am very interested to learn more about the localities that have 

already implemented measures similar to those included in the Inclusive Home Design Act, and what the impact of those local laws 

and regulations have been on individuals with disabilities, and on 

the local real estate and home construction markets. 

I would now like to recognize our subcommittee’s ranking member to make an opening statement. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

having the hearing here today. I would like to thank the witnesses 

who are going to be testifying, and our colleague, Congresswoman 

Jan Schakowsky, on H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home Design Act, 

which, as we have heard, aims to make federally-funded singlefamily homes more accessible to persons with disabilities. 

There is no doubt that we should do everything that we can to 

ensure equal access and mobility to persons with disabilities. And 

this legislation hopes to address that laudable goal. However, I do 

hope that, in the course of this discussion, that our witnesses here 

today, and perhaps the sponsor, would be able to address several 

of the concerns that have been raised and brought to my attention. 

For example, this legislation sets up new building specifications 

for Federal housing programs that may be different from other 

building codes financed in the conventional market. Could this create confusion? And could this add additional cost to the price of a 

single-family home? I think that’s a good question to ask. 

Also, some of the enforcement and compliance provisions in the 

Act are unclear, and may present an additional burden on State 

and local governments. For instance, how will modifications to 

homes previously deemed compliant be handled? And how do you 

envision that States will monitor and finance compliance oversight 

and enforcement of newly-built and existing homes? 

Finally, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses regarding 

the liability provisions included in the bill. Some folks have raised 

concerns that they are vague and open-ended and could expose 

homeowners to significant legal liabilities which could add, again, 

considerable cost to the building of new homes or renovating existing homes. 

But again, I would like to emphasize that the goal of accessibility 

for either the aged or folks with disabilities or anyone who has a 

challenge in their lifestyle, where they cannot—where accessibility 

is an issue when they are looking for a place to live, is something 

that I think we should look for. We have so much technology and 

knowledge on how to create and assure accessibility to buildings 

and rooms and interior doors and bathrooms and all of these 

3 

things, that we ought to use what we know and put it to good use 

for the future buildings. 

So I thank the Congresswoman, and I thank the chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased to welcome our first distinguished panel. Our first 

witness will be the Honorable Jan Schakowsky, Councilwoman [sic] 

from the Ninth District of the State of Illinois. Thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. And, without objection, 

your written statement will be made a part of the record. You will 

now be recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Capito. I could tell by your opening statements that you 

understand what this issue is, but let me talk a little bit about the 

Inclusive Home Design Act of 2009. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today, with a 

special shout-out to Alberto Barrera of Access Living in Chicago, 

whom I have known and worked with for a long time. 

The Inclusive Home Design Act is a forward-looking and commonsense initiative that would make more new homes accessible 

for people with disabilities. In addition to benefitting individuals 

with existing disabilities, including disabled veterans, it will also 

help to accommodate our increasingly older population by allowing 

seniors to age in place. 

The bill’s requirements are simple. The Inclusive Home Design 

Act would require that, when practical, all newly-built single-family homes receiving Federal funds would have to meet four specific 

accessibility standards: first, the home would have at least one accessible entrance into the home, zero step; second, the doorways on 

the main level of the home must be wide enough to accommodate 

a wheelchair; third, electrical and climate controls—light switches, 

thermostats—must be placed at a reachable height from a wheelchair; and finally, the main floor must have at least one wheelchair-accessible bathroom. 

The cost of adopting those standards for a single-family home is 

nominal, especially when compared to the cost of retrofitting later. 

The average cost added for homes built with accessibility features 

is between $100 and $600. Retrofitting a home, on the other hand, 

can cost many thousands of dollars. 

Homes with these basic features are for everyone. For individuals who have a long-term disability, it expands the number of 

homes they can buy or rent. We have worked closely with the Paralyzed Veterans of America in developing this legislation, and they 

are supportive of the bill for our wounded warriors. 

Many of us will face some short-term disability during our lifetime. Being able to heal in your home, rather than in a hospital 

or rehab bed, is both good for the healing process and reduces the 

cost of a hospital stay. It’s good for individuals who have friends 

or family members with disabilities who come by for a visit. 

Finally, there is the advantage of being able to—I want to expand on the issue of being able to age in place. In 2000, there were 

4 

30.5 million people between 65 and 84 years old, and that number 

will grow to 47 million by 2020. Nearly 3 in 5 seniors over the age 

of 80 suffer from some kind of physical impairment. And often, the 

prohibitive cost of making existing homes accessible deprives seniors of their independence, pushing them into nursing homes. 

The cost of nursing home care is expensive, and a large proportion is paid for with public dollars under Medicare and Medicaid. 

The national median rate for a year in an assisted living facility 

is $38,000, where nursing homes can cost up to $75,000 a year. We 

could save a lot of money if individuals could continue to live in 

their homes with supportive services. 

But incredibly, entire developments are being built and marketed 

as senior communities, thousands of homes that people are going 

to have to leave as they age, because they don’t include basic accessible features in their homes. Allowing more people to age at home 

will save taxpayers and help improve the quality of life for our seniors. 

This issue is—this idea is doable, because it has been done before. For almost 2 decades, and all over the country since 1992, 

more than 40 cities and local communities have implemented either mandatory or voluntary ordinances for including basic accessibility features in newly-constructed single-family homes: 

Bolingbrook, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Iowa City, Iowa; St. Petersburg, Florida; Pima County, Arizona; Vermont; Texas; Kansas; and 

Minnesota. From north to south, east to west, communities have 

had great success in building inclusive homes. 

Pima County, Arizona, passed an ordinance in 2002, thanks to 

our colleague, Representative Raul Grijalva, and in the last 8 

years, more than 21,000 homes have been built. I want to quote 

from the Pima County chief building official. The county ordinance 

was ‘‘at first resisted by builders, based on the fact that it would 

require costly changes to conventional design and construction 

practices. But it became evident that with the appropriate planning, the construction could result in no additional cost. Indeed, the 

jurisdiction no longer receives builder complaints regarding the ordinance, and the ordinance has been so well incorporated into the 

building of safety plan review and inspection processes, that there 

is no additional cost to the county to enforce its requirements.’’ 

There really is no magic to some of these rules, just habit. An 

accessible home is just as attractive to any buyer or renter. Door 

widths or placement of light switches are arbitrary decisions, often 

unnoticeable. But the wrong decision can make your home 

unlivable. 

And so I would hope, as the economy continues to recover and 

home building starts to pick up, that the homes that are built 

should be ones that anyone can live in, and anyone can visit. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Schakowsky can be 

found on page 20 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman 

Schakowsky. Someone told me that I misspoke and called you 

‘‘Councilwoman.’’ 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Oh. 

5 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. I would now like to 

ask unanimous consent that you be considered a member of the 

subcommittee for the duration of the hearing. And would you like 

to join us on the dais? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would. I am wondering if I could just deal 

with one issue that Representative Capito raised. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Certainly. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And that is the—actually, the two issues. I 

hope I have answered some of the cost of the homes. But the issues 

of enforcement and liability, I think that the language, in fact, in 

the bill can be made clearer, less vague, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to work with the committee to address those 

questions so that we can get agreement on those. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. We will be happy to do that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I would now like to introduce witness 

panel two. I am pleased to welcome our distinguished second panel. 

Our first witness will be Ms. Eleanor Smith, director, Concrete 

Change. 

Our second witness will be Mr. Alberto Barrera, manager of community development, Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Kelly Buckland, executive director, 

National Council on Independent Living. 

Our fourth witness will be Dr. Janet Smith, associate professor, 

and co-director of the Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement, University of Illinois at Chicago. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary 

of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ELEANOR A. SMITH, DIRECTOR, CONCRETE 

CHANGE 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. Good afternoon. I am very glad to have the 

opportunity to address you all. My name is Eleanor Smith, and I 

am the director of Concrete Change, a nonprofit based in Atlanta 

which I helped found in 1987. The mission is working to make 

basic access the norm in new houses, whether or not the first resident has a disability. 

As a small child in the 1940’s, I had a severe case of polio, and 

I faced a forbidding world of no curb cuts, no access to public buildings, and only a handful of universities with access. When I became 

the age where I could go out in the world on my own, only with 

great difficulty could I find an apartment to live in. For instance, 

I lived in a house for 6 months where the narrow bathroom door 

forced me to crawl on the floor each time that I used the bathroom. 

As an adult, I saw various laws enacted that greatly increased 

access to government buildings. And in 1991, Federal requirements 

were added for new residential buildings. However, detached single-family houses and townhouses remain the housing type that 

has no widespread Federal law covering it. And as a result, the 

great majority of those houses are built new with basic barriers 

such as steps at all entrances and narrow bathroom doors. 

6 

The number of houses that need access is very often greatly underestimated. Estimators often count only wheelchair users when, 

in fact, great numbers of people who use walkers or have poor balance or stiffness or weakness also cannot negotiate a step. In fact, 

research has shown that a very high percentage of all new houses 

will at some point during the lifetime of the house have a resident 

with a severe long-term mobility impairment. And it is impossible 

to predict in which households a person will develop a disability. 

The Inclusive Home Design Act properly prioritizes those few 

features that have the most and harshest impact on people’s lives. 

Steps at all entrances and narrow bathroom doors cause very intense problems. The people who cannot afford to retrofit live in 

danger and isolation. They often cannot exit the house independently in case of fire, or enter their own bathroom. Increased falls, 

as people struggle with steps. Increased bladder and kidney problems of people who reduce their water intake chronically year after 

year, because of difficulty of fitting through their bathroom door. 

Decreased health of caretakers who have to lift their loved one frequently because of steps and carry bedpans more often because of 

lack of bathroom access. And isolation and depression that develops 

when you cannot visit most of your friends and neighbors because 

of the major barriers in their houses. 

The architectural features of the Act have already been proven 

inexpensive and not difficult to incorporate in the great majority of 

situations. More than 40,000 existing houses on the open market 

have been built over the last 20 years in Arizona, Texas, Illinois, 

Georgia, Ohio, and other States. 

When these ordinances and policies were first proposed, they 

were often labeled impractical, including by some building professionals. But they have proven practical. These houses run the 

gamut from very affordable to high-end. They include houses built 

on concrete slabs and houses built over basements, on very hilly 

terrain as well as level terrain, climates and soils ranging from Arizona to northern Illinois. 

Although these ordinances and policies have been producing 

houses from between 4 and 20 years, none has been rescinded. This 

seems to me to attest to the practicality of the access features and 

the inspection enforcement procedures that have been used to bring 

them about. 

While the cost of—Representative Schakowsky named the low 

cost that these builders, experienced builders, have named, much 

lower than costs named by builders who have not yet become experienced—building basic access in new homes has been demonstrated to be low, the cost of continuing to build with barriers 

is very high. Renovating existing homes to remove barriers costs 

exponentially more than creating basic access at the time of construction. State and local funds for these renovations continue to 

run out early on in the fiscal year, and some of those funds are not 

available to renters, leaving renters particularly vulnerable to living in dangerous homes. 

Even more costly—again, as Representative Schakowsky mentioned—is the cost of nursing home care, because the features that 

are in the bill are the very ones needed to come home from the hospital. 

7 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eleanor Smith can be found on 

page 35 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Alberto Barrera? 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. You’re welcome. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. BARRERA. Hi, good afternoon. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Good afternoon. 

STATEMENT OF ALBERTO BARRERA, MANAGER, COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT, ACCESS LIVING OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO 

Mr. BARRERA. I would like to thank Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and the members of the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Community Opportunity for allowing me to testify today on an 

issue that is at the heart of all the advocacy work that I do. 

My name is Alberto Barrera. For the past 20 years at Access Living, I have been personally involved in advocating for housing in 

publicly-assisted housing. Access Living is the only center for independent living serving the 600,000 people with disabilities in metropolitan Chicago. For the last 30 years, we have dedicated ourselves to the self-determination and independence of people with all 

types of disabilities. 

Our work affects people with disabilities not only in Chicago, but 

throughout the country. We have fought and continue to fight to 

increase access to public transportation, public education, employment, health care, and housing. Above all, we look to find ways to 

liberate our people from systemic segregation and warehousing. 

Housing is the key to our freedom. 

Publicly-assisted housing is the main source of housing for people 

with disabilities earning SSI and SS DI incomes. In most cases, 

these incomes are at 15 percent or less of the area median income. 

Access Living receives an average of 4,000 inquiries for accessible 

affordable housing annually, and an average of 60 individuals with 

disabilities come to our monthly housing counseling meetings. 

The Chicago Housing Authority has reported that in 2009, they 

received 84 requests from residents with disabilities requesting retrofit modifications for ground floor, no-step entry units. So far this 

year, the CHA has received 62 such requests. We at Access Living 

think that the actual demand for accessible housing is much higher. 

For the past 10 years, Access Living has been administering an 

access modification program funded by the CHA. Our modification 

program assists people with disabilities in CHA’s home choice 

voucher program. What started as a pilot program for $30,000 has 

now reached $145,000 annually. We assist 60 to 70 very low-income residents with disabilities. Of course, this doesn’t begin to address the total need in our community. 

Access Living’s retrofit fund covers very basic modifications: 

wider entryways; accessible switches and outlets; ramps; and bathroom modifications such as grab bars. These are some of the basic 

access features included in the Inclusive Home Design Act. There 

are other modification programs throughout the country, but we 

cannot depend on retrofits for basic access. Most have long waiting 

8 

lists, and it’s not unusual for people to end up in a nursing home 

or die while waiting for modifications. 

This legislation, the Inclusive Home Design Act, has been in development for 20 years or more, and in Congress for 8 years. It 

came out of a joint effort between grassroots people, Congresswoman Schakowsky, and advocates such as Ms. Eleanor Smith, 

and many other activists who were deeply concerned with the exclusion of people with disabilities from housing opportunities. 

Many national grassroots organizations support the Home Inclusive Design Act, including the national grassroots disability rights 

organization ADAPT, which has also included this issue in their 

housing agenda. 

This legislation will begin to end the practice of ‘‘exclusion by design,’’ which is a form of disability oppression. Simply put, requiring that all newly-constructed publicly-assisted homes contain a nostep entrance and usable space on the ground floor will finally provide real access to options for people with disabilities in our struggles to locate affordable, accessible, and integrated housing. 

The Inclusive Home Design Act is the missing link of the Fair 

Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Its passage will complete the 

circle of civil rights in publicly-assisted housing, guaranteeing full 

and equal access for all. The Inclusive Home Design Act is a step 

forward to end the culture of social isolation currently accepted and 

practiced in our country. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Would you wrap it up, please? 

Mr. BARRERA. Sorry. It will provide equal opportunity for very 

low-income Americans with disabilities to have equal access to all 

publicly-assisted housing. 

We believe that the passage of this bill, and the hoped-for passage of the Choice Community Act, will provide the structure needed to honor the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 

ADA, the spirit that says that every American with a disability has 

a right to full access to society. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrera can be found on page 23 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BARRERA. Thank you, again. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Kelly Buckland. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY BUCKLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON INDEPENDENT LIVING (NCIL) 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Capito, 

and distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon and 

thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the National 

Council on Independent Living. 

NCIL is the longest-running national cross-disability grassroots 

organization run by and for people with disabilities. 

Founded in 1982, NCIL represents thousands of organizations 

and individuals, including centers for independent living, statewide 

independent living councils, individuals with disabilities, and other 

organizations that advocate for the human and civil rights of people with disabilities throughout the United States. 

9 

Since its establishment, NCIL has carried out its mission by assisting members—centers for independent living in building their 

capacity to promote social change, eliminate disability-based discrimination, and create opportunities for people with disabilities to 

participate in the legislative process to effect change. 

NCIL promotes the national advocacy agenda set by its membership and provides input and testimony on national disability policy. 

Since 1979, I have been actively involved in advocating for the 

rights of people with disabilities. And over the years, I have worked 

for the protection advocacy system, a center for independent living, 

and a statewide independent living council, and for other councils 

that promote the direct service and systemic changes of the independent living movement. 

Recently, I moved to the Washington, D.C., area and I spent an 

entire year looking for a house to purchase that was accessible 

enough that I could even try to modify it to meet my needs. I then 

had to spend thousands of dollars making my house accessible. 

This expense would have been considerably less if the home had already had some basic accessibility features. The Inclusive Home 

Design Act will require accessibility features for people with disabilities in newly-constructed single-family houses and townhouses 

that are federally assisted. 

Finding accessible housing is a constant, ongoing struggle for 

people with disabilities in most communities. Despite the impact of 

legislation mandating accessibility in housing such as section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 

1988, the vast majority of housing available across the country is 

not accessible. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, since 1995, about 360,000 project-based Section 8 units have 

been lost to conversion to market-rate housing. Annually, another 

10,000 to 15,000 units leave. Those housing units are not being replaced at an equivalent rate. 

Compliance with the Fair Housing Act accessibility requirements 

is still erratic, after more than 2 decades. In April, New York Attorney General Cuomo brokered agreements with six large real estate developers over the lack of accessibility in their buildings. And 

in July, HUD charged a Chicago developer and architect with failure to build accessible units. 

Centers for independent living throughout the country consistently grapple with the lack of accessible and affordable housing. 

One of our biggest challenges is not only finding accessible housing 

for people living in the community, but finding it for those who 

want to transition out of an institution. In many communities, the 

biggest obstacle to people with disabilities living in their communities is the lack of affordable and accessible housing. 

Accessible single-family housing will also allow seniors to age in 

place and allow for families to stay in their homes, should they develop a disability as an adult, or if they have a child with a disability. The cost to renovate an inaccessible home is much higher 

than if the home was built with accessibility features. 

People can also suddenly find themselves needing accessibility 

improvements due to a disability. Renovations and modifications 

can range from the simple installation of grab bars to the more extensive addition of ramps, stair glides, the widening of doorways, 

10 

and renovations of bathrooms and kitchens. The cost of these renovations can prohibit many people with disabilities and seniors 

from making the necessary accessible improvements. 

NCIL supports the language in the Inclusive Home Design Act 

that will create accessible housing which is needed in order for people to move out of institutions and back into their communities. 

Living in the community is essential for people of all ages and all 

disabilities to be true members of the community. 

NCIL is dedicated to ending the institutional bias, not only in 

health care and housing, but in society’s perceptions of the capabilities of people with disabilities. 

For example, Mark Chambers was a computer programmer living 

in a house in San Francisco. He was mugged on a stairway and hit 

over the head with a rock, resulting in a traumatic brain injury 

and paralysis. He was moved into the City in a nursing home 

known as Laguna Honda, and spent over 10 years there. He sued 

under the Olmstead Decision, asking to be moved into the community. When he was released, the City had to find a unit accessible 

from outside and spent thousands of dollars to renovate the unit 

to accommodate Mark’s needs. This is an example of a person who 

lost everything due to disability, except the fight to get back to his 

community. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Could you wrap it up, please? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Madam Chairwoman, the Inclusive Home Design 

Act is about more than creating accessible homes. People with disabilities who historically have been isolated, at first shut away to 

institutions and nursing homes, are now isolated in their communities. Because the overwhelming majority of single-family homes 

and many of the multi-family homes still have steps, people with 

mobility disabilities not only cannot live where they want to live; 

they also cannot visit their family, friends, and neighbors. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to answering 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckland can be found on page 

27 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Dr. Janet Smith. 

STATEMENT OF JANET L. SMITH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

AND CO-DIRECTOR OF THE NATHALIE P. VOORHEES CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO 

Ms. JANET SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify today. 

I am an associate professor in urban planning and policy at the 

University of Illinois at Chicago, and I am co-director of the 

Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement, a 32-year-old research center at UIC that assists community organizations and government entities in their efforts to 

improve the quality of life in the Chicago area and Illinois, and also 

in communities around the United States. 

Most of our research is done in partnership with community organizations such as Access Living, and also policy stakeholders. 

11 

Since 1997, I have led several large-scale research projects which 

are cited in my CV—you can look at that for my record. 

Regarding research on accessible housing needs of people with 

disabilities, I was the principal investigator of a recently completed 

study for the National Council on Disability entitled, ‘‘The State of 

Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective.’’ 

Before the NCD report, I completed a study along similar lines on 

accessible housing and affordable housing for people with disabilities in Illinois. 

Affordable, accessible, and appropriate housing is critical and integral to making a community more livable for people with disabilities and, I would argue, for all of us. The Inclusive Home Design 

Act is an important step toward this end. 

Today, I want to summarize some key findings from the National 

Council on Disability Report, which all representatives should have 

received last spring. And if you didn’t, I brought copies on a thumb 

drive for you. 

Currently, an estimated 35 million households have one or more 

persons with a disability, which is about one-third of the households in 2007. Nearly 15 million of these households own their own 

home. Most are between the ages of 65 and 85 years old. But such 

a high level of ownership among this age group is likely due to the 

fact that many purchased their homes before acquiring a disability 

as they aged. 

Many people are likely to face challenges if they want to remain 

independent in a home as they age. National data—for which there 

is not a lot, but we have some—indicates that hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities need basic home modifications to 

make their homes accessible. 

In my testimony, I give you a lot more data. But just to kind of 

highlight, we looked at the largest need; it is often for people needing grab bars or hand rails. In 1995, it was estimated to be about 

788,000. We know that that number is much higher now. 

Similarly, we found that there were a lot—most basic needs were 

for things that would make a home visitable: that is, needing 

ramps, elevators, or lifts to get into their unit once in the building, 

widened doorways, and accessible bathrooms. Again, the numbers 

that are available are in the testimony itself. 

Homeowners have the largest unmet need, because of the fact 

that homeowners are the largest population when you look at housing and compared to renters. While overall need is greater in urban 

areas, a larger portion of people in rural areas are likely to be living in single-family homes that are not accessible. That’s because 

more rural folks are in homeowner situations and single-family 

homes, in particular. 

I am not going to go into a lot of data that has already been 

cited—thank you to Representative Schakowsky—but these numbers are just going to continue to increase, in terms of the need, 

when we look ahead into the future. Particularly with the aging 

population—and I would note also with the Baby Boomers who are 

coming on into the point of wanting to live in more accessible and 

inclusive communities—we think that—based on the research we 

did, we think that the Inclusive Home Design Act of 2009 can meet 

these needs. 

12 

Most accessible housing currently in the private sector exists because of Federal laws, many—the ones that Chairwoman Waters 

mentioned at the start of this committee meeting. That is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act in limited parts, and the Fair Housing Act. For the most part, though, 

single-family homes are not covered by these laws at all. Yet single-family homes make up a large part of the U.S. housing stock, 

which means many homes in the United States are not visitable for 

a person with a disability. 

As we have heard earlier, there is reference to over 40 jurisdictions across the Nation that have adopted either mandatory or voluntary policies. Estimates are—and these are very conservative estimates—that over 30,000 homes have been constructed as a result 

of those voluntary and mandatory rules. 

However, when we start to look at these examples, only a small 

fraction of all the U.S. jurisdictions—and it’s uneven, and it starts 

to create an uneven housing market for people with disabilities. 

The Inclusive Home Design Act could change this, since it would 

target housing built with Federal funds. This includes the largest 

sources of Federal funding that we’re already building housing 

with, and particularly affordable housing, which is an area that 

people with disabilities are more likely to be needing assistance 

with. 

So we can look at it through the lens of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block 

Grant, through the home investment fund. We can also look at it 

through the largest program, through the USDA that helps with 

rural housing, the 502 single-family home. Most of that is help 

with the construction of new housing, new single-family homes in 

rural areas. And if we added to it the low-income housing tax credit, we could add hundreds of thousands of units very quickly that 

would be visitable for people with disabilities across the whole 

United States. 

It’s important to keep in mind that these Federal programs, however, assist with both new construction and rehabilitation. And one 

of the things in the Act is focusing on new construction, which is 

very important and very cost-effective. 

However, if there were opportunities, I would encourage looking 

into the ability to add incentives to encourage retrofitting housing 

where it’s not cost-prohibitive, to actually make those homes as visitable as possible. And again, it would help to distribute and make 

sure that there is more accessible and visitable housing sooner. 

I think I will stop at this point and just say that if there were 

additional things that you were going to consider that could also 

help move this forward—because I think one of the things that 

we’re looking at is Federal funding—the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is funding that needs to be added—oh, I’m sorry— 

is something that needs to be supported, and that could also include more housing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Janet Smith can be found on 

page 40 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JANET SMITH. Sorry about that. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I would like to thank you all— 

13 

Ms. JANET SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. —for your testimony. It was tremendously 

informative. And I certainly have a few questions, and I would like 

to recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I think it was you, Ms. Eleanor Smith, who talked about retrofitting. And as I began to think about the CDBG program in our 

cities, I don’t recall seeing many of them—or any of them, and 

maybe I just didn’t know where to look; I didn’t look—dedicate 

money for retrofitting for homes for people with disabilities. Do you 

know much about that? Yes? 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. It’s my understanding, from looking at a lot 

of the programs that there may be retrofits for people who specifically have a disability now. But in terms of retrofitting other 

houses that would be easy to retrofit, that would be a wonderful 

plan. It would be good to distinguish between what is easily 

retrofitable, and to do that at the time of retrofit, and let the other 

ones go if they don’t have a disabled individual moving in. 

So I can’t answer that too specifically, except I agree with your 

observation. It is distressing that—to watch—when Georgia runs 

out of retrofit money in March for the year of 2009, leaving 290- 

some people on the list, it is discouraging to go down the street and 

see approximately 80 new units going up with the very same barriers that people are struggling to remove. 

So, I do think it’s important to have both strategies. But we will 

never run out of houses to retrofit, but we do have an opportunity 

to move forward and not recreate the very same barriers in new 

houses that we’re struggling to get out of old houses. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Let me just ask 

Mr. Buckland. What do you say to developers who say, ‘‘We would 

like to do it, but it’s just too costly. When we’re building, it would 

drive up the cost so much that it would not be affordable to the 

average person with a disability.’’ What do you say? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Madam Chairwoman, my experience, through 

doing a lot of public policy work, is that once that stuff gets built 

into the code, it’s no longer any more costly. Once they start building to the code and put those accessibility features in place, it really is no more costly to build a house that is accessible. It’s only 

costly when you have to go back and retrofit them. 

So really, you need to design the house to be accessible from the 

beginning, and it won’t add any costs. That would be my response 

to the builders who say that. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. And Ms. Janet 

Smith, what are the estimates of the unmet need? 

Ms. JANET SMITH. There are different ways to look at that. We 

have different sources of data, and we have pulled from, for example, the 1995 American housing study that was done. Only once 

have they asked this question very specifically of families, and I 

would encourage that we look at asking this again. We’re starting 

to include people with disabilities again in the American housing 

survey of this last year. 

But based on that, we find that we have, just specifically looking 

at people who identified the need in their housing that would help 

them with their disability to have grab bars or hand rails, 788,000. 

And, like I said, that’s a number from 1995. We know it has to 

14 

have increased, we just haven’t been able—we don’t know how to 

project how much further. Ramps were over 612,000. An elevator 

or a lift to access the unit once in the building was 309,000. Another 300,000 needed widened doorways in their unit, the doorways 

and halls in the unit. Another 566,000 needed accessible bathrooms. 

These are people who have identified the need for it. And we say 

it’s a conservative estimate, because there are probably a lot more 

people who may not realize what needs they have, and how to identify them. And again, it’s data that’s over 15 years old. So we know 

that the population has extended. It has increased immensely since 

then. 

When we look at just estimates, though, for people under the age 

of 65, the numbers have ranged between 3.5 million and 10 million 

who are in need of accessible housing and currently don’t have it. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Ms. Capito? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I thank the witnesses. We have just heard some very large figures of folks who are 

in need of housing that has been fit for accessibility. And absolutely, I believe the statistics are probably low for a lot of different 

reasons. And I appreciate the fact, too, that living—I am from a 

rural area, and understanding that accessibility or finding a place 

or the availability to move to another place is exceedingly difficult, 

in that we’re the low density areas of rural areas in America. 

But—so I guess one of my questions would be if—Congressman 

Schakowsky said the cost was—I believe the figure, you said, was 

somewhere around $100 to $800 or something like that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. To $600, yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. To $600. The cost of a house, that’s a minimal expenditure for a home. Why do you think in the new building that’s 

going forward that this isn’t sort of voluntarily being—if the need 

is so great, and—why wouldn’t builders be building to some of 

these specs, anyway, just because—anticipating a baby boom and 

aging in place, and all of those kind of things? 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. That is a really good question that I have 

puzzled over for approximately 20 years. And I think that it is a 

mix of things. I think that I have been told—and so I believe—that 

builders like to do what they have done over and over again. It’s 

the fastest and quickest way to do. And until they are pushed to 

do differently, like they have been in Pima County, where there are 

now 20,000 houses up, they use the same methods, just somewhat 

out of habit. 

I think that there are misperceptions of what the house will look 

like. And I have included in my written testimony that I gave you 

some photos of the houses we have talked about from those places. 

I think that, to be honest, as well, an unspoken reason why these 

issues haven’t rushed forward from the public quite as quickly as 

green and some other issues is that we’re not so eager to think 

about our bodies deteriorating, or those people over there not being 

able to come to our house. It comes home to roost very quickly in 

a family. 

But I do think that coupled with not seeing the good examples, 

and coupled with builders who like to do things the same ways, is 

the issue that we need to be encouraged more strongly to really 

15 

look at the fact that change happens in bodies, and everybody 

grows old, and it doesn’t have to be the end of the world. 

Mr. BARRERA. May I make a comment? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes, Mr. Barrera. I’m going to ask you another 

question, so if you want to add some of that, as well, the other 

question I wanted to ask you is you mentioned in your testimony 

that there are other modification programs in different areas of the 

country. And I don’t know if you highlighted one or two that you 

think do a really good job of this, whether it’s local communities, 

or a city or a county— 

Mr. BARRERA. There are other modification programs that United 

Cerebral Palsy has, modification funds throughout some of their 

State chapters throughout the country. Many State finance agencies, including our own in Illinois, also have modification programs. 

The City of Chicago also has other modification programs. 

Most modification programs come out of CDBG funds throughout 

the country, including in rural areas. But I have to restate that we 

don’t want modification funds to take the place of basic access or 

take the place of the Inclusive Home Design Act. We have to— 

when modification funds are created, they are limited to a certain 

amount of money per modification, ranging from $500 to up to 

$10,000, $12,000, depending who is providing the modification. At 

Access Living, we have a cap of only $5,000 per modification. 

So it varies on the amount of money you can spend on modification. Most of them are only one-time deals. And when disability 

progresses, you’re going to need something else, in most cases. 

Like I mentioned in my testimony, there are extensive waiting 

lists in most of them. And people have ended up in institutions or, 

like I said, end up dying, waiting for these modifications. It’s my 

knowledge that in an Illinois modification program that was administered also by Access Living, four people died waiting for modifications. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much— 

Mr. BARRERA. I wanted to add, also on the question of developers 

complaining about cost. This has been historical in the private sector, including when we made attempts—when we successfully 

passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act construction and design 

standards. We had a lot of battle with some builders. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Schakowsky? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Go ahead and finish your thought about the— 

Mr. BARRERA. I just wanted to finish my thought that this, the 

Inclusive Home Design Act, will trigger publicly-assisted houses, 

and where most developers are not-for-profit developers, developers 

that are community developers, they also get funding from low-income housing tax credits, CDBG, and other government fundings. 

And the ones that I have spoken with, they have endorsed, and 

they have backed up, the Inclusive Home Design Act. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It’s not just those that are not-for-profits, 

though. Is that not true, Ms. Smith, that we have developers now 

in Pima County, 21,000 homes? And it seems to work really well. 

16 

And I would also like to get a little bit to the issue of enforcement of these laws, and talk about how it is or isn’t a problem. Go 

ahead. 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. Just as the Inclusive Home Design Act 

would do, the laws that kind of mirror it earlier on permit an exemption on a very odd lot, on a lot where you can’t do it. Interestingly, across the country, about 95 percent have proven feasible of 

lots. Only about 5 percent or less have proven unfeasible. 

What the local governments who do this, who carry out the law, 

they have a checklist that they use that’s very simple, because 

these features are very visible. They’re not behind the wall. So 

when they’re out for the regular inspections, not a special inspection, they check for these issues. And then, if there—it’s not 

present, they press on the builder to correct that error. 

And they also check, of course, the plans that come in. And if 

they see plans coming in that do not have the features, they again 

educate the builder on how he could do this. So— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So do places like Pima County review the 

plans that are done before the building? 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. It is my understanding they do. And I know 

in Atlanta, they did. It’s two slightly different situations, because 

Atlanta is more like the Inclusive Home Design Act in that it refers 

only to certain houses, whereas in Pima County, it’s every house 

built. And the same way with Bolingbrook, Illinois, every house 

built. 

So I think in those cases, they applied the same methods they 

do if wiring is not correct, or if the houses have not plumbed correctly. They deal with it on a case to case basis. And then, if a lot 

is extremely difficult, they do as they should, remove the requirement for the zero step entrance, and let it proceed as follows. 

Does that answer your question? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It does. I wanted to ask—any one of you can 

answer—I think there is this perception—I’m glad you included 

pictures—that somehow accessibility isn’t pretty. And I am wondering, especially in these places where all homes need to be built 

that way, is there any problem in selling them to people without 

disabilities? Are there any rejections because the home isn’t attractive enough? 

Ms. ELEANOR SMITH. I don’t believe there are. I—where I live, 

they are seamlessly—the zero step entrance is seamlessly done. 

People don’t usually see a 32-inch door and say, ‘‘Oh, what a 

strange, wide door.’’ They really don’t notice it. 

Where I live, we voluntarily, in our co-housing community, created 67 houses with basic access. No one who has moved in has noticed it, until they start bringing in their furniture. When they say, 

‘‘Oh, good. It was so hard to get it out of my old house.’’ 

But it’s the retrofitted houses that look awkward. And usually, 

because of the many houses I have lived in, all the ramps we have 

had to stick on an old house, an existing house, have had to be removed by the new owner because they didn’t look good. But the 

houses in our community where people have moved in and out, not 

only did they not notice them, but obviously, no one is taking a 

jackhammer and removing the stoop, because it just goes straight 

up to the porch. 

17 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. For future work in passing this bill, are there 

builders who will testify to the fact that this is a good thing to do? 

Alberto? 

Mr. BARRERA. Yes. Yes, In the Chicago area, I have spoken with 

some builders within the Chicago Rehab Network, which is a notfor-profit community developer, and they have supported this, including CRN, Chicago Rehab Network. And these people have a 

long history of developing affordable housing. 

So I don’t think it would be any problem getting some of the developers, even in the private sector, that we know, people— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think that’s really important— 

Mr. BARRERA. —including architects— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. BARRERA. Including architects. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. The Chair notes 

that some members may have additional questions for this panel, 

which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the 

hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit 

written questions to these witnesses, and to place their responses 

in the record. This panel is now dismissed. 

Before we adjourn, the written statements of the following organizations will be made a part of the record for this hearing: the 

statement of David P. Sloane, senior vice president, AARP; the 

statement of Darrell Price, housing policy coordinator, Access Center for Independent Living in Dayton, Ohio; the statement from the 

Pima County chief building official; the statement from the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the statement from the Consortium for 

Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force; and the statement 

from a coalition of disability advocates from across the country. 

We also have a statement here from the National Association of 

Home Builders. 

Before we adjourn, I will, without objection, give myself 30 seconds to just say a special thank you to our panelists who came 

here, panelists who happen to have disabilities, and who have 

taken their time and their energy to help us with this very important subject, and to support the very fine work of Congresswoman 

Schakowsky. Thank you so very much. 

This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(19) 

A P P E N D I X 

September 29, 2010 

20 


62688.001
21 


62688.002
22 


62688.003
23 


62688.004
24 


62688.005
25 


62688.006
26 


62688.007
27 


62688.008
28 


62688.009
29 


62688.010
30 


62688.011
31 


62688.012
32 


62688.013
33 


62688.014
34 


62688.015
35 


62688.016
36 


62688.017
37 


62688.018
38 


62688.019
39 


62688.020
40 


62688.021
41 


62688.022
42 


62688.023
43 


62688.024
44 


62688.025
45 


62688.026
46 


62688.027
47 


62688.028
48 


62688.029
49 


62688.030
50 


62688.031
51 


62688.032
52 


62688.033
53 


62688.034
54 


62688.035
55 


62688.036
56 


62688.037
57 


62688.038
58 


62688.039
59 


62688.040
60 


62688.041
61 


62688.042
62 


62688.045
63 


62688.046
64 


62688.047
65 


62688.048
66 


62688.049
67 


62688.050
68 


62688.051
69 


62688.052